Joe used the term "same sex marriage". Yay!! nt

[Critters2]

[dubeskin]

1. But yet also came out against it :(

[Bread and Circus]

2. I think he left it up to the churches and so forth. Dividing the legal from the symbolic.

[Left Is Write]

5. He did. He said they weren't interested in "redefining" marriage

and would "leave it up to the faiths and those practicing the faiths."

It was a lukewarm and disappointing answer, but not exactly "against" same sex marriage.

[dubeskin]

7. Not necessarily against it

However, it's safe to say that they do not support it.

[Critters2]

6. That's my position. It's why I have no problem doing same-sex weddings.

The religious (not symbolic, btw) and the civil issues are two different things. I'll do the religious service now, and let the state catch up when it can.

[Critters2]

3. Yeah, so much for that. Still, it was nice to hear him "slip".

I think we heard how he really feels. Before he toed the campaign line.

[justiceischeap]

4. Unfortunately, it's still a losing issue

Joe thinks it is inevitable though.

[spag68]

8. same sex anything

Come on, you know he can't say anything like that. Don't you think that for now, it's the best they can do? My own opinion is that his statement is correct, the legal issue is the one to settle. Personally I could care less what gender two loving people are, first a good union is hard to achieve,second it's none of my business.

[Marnieworld]

9. But he was clearly only for civil unions

There is a difference between the two. Marriage is not just a religious term but a legal term. Two major state do not differentiate and yet everyone acted as if that wasn't the case now. Marriage, the word should be the legal term- anything else is separate but equal and logistically a nightmare considering all of the laws with the term marriage. Biden wanted his cake and eat it too. It wasn't a stand it was a stipulation to separation in society instead of equality for all. He meant same-sex civil unions and civil rights but not marriage, nothing to "Yay" about unfortunately.

[TheDonkey]

10. full-throated support for giving gay couples all the civil rights as straight couples

no wavering in his speech or cowering like Palin.

[Marnieworld]

13. I get that and that's nice

But I personally believe it should be one word, one union for everyone to be perfectly equal. When you hear Californians no able to marry and the joy they get saying husband and wife and wedding like everyone else, no longer different and marginalized, it really makes it clear that this is the right way. Legally I mean. Laws say marriage not civil union. New laws would need to be written for a separate union or separate rights when it is easier to change who can get married period. Churches and whatever other religious institutions would and should always have the right to decide what couples they marry in their own ceremonies but the law should not discriminate. And his position still does.

I am grateful that Democrats are where they are and he certainly could have been worse. Baby steps to where we want to go but we aren't there yet.

[kitkat65]

12. Yes, but he did make it clear that the Constitution guaranteed the rights

of same sex couples.

I'm glad that, in a way, he took a stand that the Constitution is there to protect people from intolerance, not just a piece of paper you can right intolerance into.

It shoots down the notion of writing a strict man-woman marriage amendment to the Constituion - a right-wing wet dream. And he said it with true conviction.

[ecstatic]

11. I loved his follow up to Sarah haha nt